Subject: [Isis-wg] new potential issue with Proprietary / Private TLV numbers?

From: Radia Perlman - Boston Center for Networking <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:29:20 -0400 (EDT)

I wasn't in Yokohama. But here's an extract from the IPsec WG minutes:

>>Steve Bellovin, Security Area Director, strongly commented that any drafts 
>>that contained specific vendor extensions would cause the IESG to be 
>>concerned and may even cause it to be rejected.  He states this in his 
>>capacity of Area Director, not as a co-author of the JFK draft.

Does anyone know what this is about? I'd imagine that IESG might be
annoyed at certain companies claiming they're using a standard, but
using private extensions that make things noninteroperable.

But as Philip's "TLV for Proprietary Use"
draft so eloquently says, extensibility has turned out
to be really powerful.

So is the IESG saying that TLV's should be illegal unless each "T" is
assigned by IANA? Or that there will be no more TLV extensible protocols,
or what?

Anyway, if that snippet from the IPsec minutes is accurate, perhaps
there will be a problem with getting this spec through the IESG.

Radia

_______________________________________________
Isis-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/isis-wg

---

From: Jeff Learman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 14:37:53 -0400

Perhaps we should ask Steve.  Anyone have his address?

Jeff

---

From: Jeff Learman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 15:33:00 -0400

I have Steve's address.  If I don't hear any vetos by tomorrow
afternoon, I'll send Steve a note asking him to explain what he meant.

Radia, what was the context of the excerpt?  Was it very general,
or was it in reference to ISIS WG work?

Thanks,
Jeff